IfE^iBByyffrgpjj^iBHjagiag ____ . _ ., --'; ~"'-*r*KZ>*fS!S&&r:'f- Fund ':tjl >:*11 "''.we-ii-.flSti .^fc^V :(:f^::f^t;/\;;:^ff:^ '"'"-': '"':''-';.;.. '"'- ;.' -;: '.'.-- V-1.-. v /'-'. r '-^^LL^:-^rt.-v>^^^ ^Ill^illgli^i^l^*^ fl?;.W^:iS^^^^^S|?pMSI& -s US! ._. .»Om«.,.I-, ;,-^ .^:-,,,,._,:._.-V,.,«:-..«_:: J ------- State Revolving Fund Program > flG Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is a modern and efficient method of financ- ing environmental infrastructure projects (e.g., wastewater treatment, agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater, and many others). The SRF Program: \ H Buys up to 4 times more environmental protection for the federal dollar than traditional one-time grants, over a twfnty-year period Requires only an initial investment to create a fund to finance environmental infrastructure for the foreseeable future H Provides substantial savings to local communities and stimulates their economies. Every bil- lion dollars invested in the SRF program, supports between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs in the construction and related industries. ' M Pays for Clean Water Act mandates Offers substantial state and local flexibility I Needs only limited federal administration and oversight Is a wise investment for the environment The Clean Water State Revolving Fund continues to be a sound investment for the future: i H Continued investment by the federal government and the states over the next few years will allow the SRF program to provide in excess of $2.0 billion in loans annually for a long time into the future The SRF program can help us address nearly all the remaining threats to our water resources. Unlike previous programs, the SRF can address a wide variety of environmental problems, including agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater, combined sewer overflows, estuary management projects, as well as traditional wastewater : Investments in environmental infrastructure will continue to stimulate local economies Covtr Photographs (loll); Tommy Dodson Unicom Stock Photo (right): Ttioo Stngells U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- Message from the Administrator It is with great pride that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this "Report of Progress" for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. The SRF is a model of the kind of program that will be needed for our new generation of environmental protection. It stands as a highly successful example of a s tate-managed program, designed to meet community-based environmental needs and offers a very flexible way of protecting our water resources. The SRF program has been very successful and, because of its many advantages, will continue to be an intelligent investment in the future. Let me highlight some of the program's many advantages: m First, because of the reaving nature of the SRF program, an initial investment by the |federal and state gov- ernments can result in till/construction of up to four times as many pollution control projects over a twenty- year period as could be constructed with traditional federal grants. Simply stated, that's four times the "bang- for-the-buck." f^'-"'" ---' ' '""' "" :' ''- :'-'.-'-:'."'" '" " ''. '.'''". - '::':' ' -^V."'..'.( ' " V ;'..";. " 3 Second, the SRF progfeh'can provide loans at rates far below those available through other sources, riffllting in substantial savings to communities over the life of the loan. jp- 8 Third, investments in Sh'vironmental infrastructure create jobs and stimulate local economic development.'' Fourth, the SRF program funds mandates contained in the Clean Water Act. The pro- gram is capitalized 83 percent by the federal government and 17 percent by the states. H Fifth, because of the program's vast flexibility, loans may be targeted to the particular environmental needs of each state, including traditional wastewater, contaminated runoff from urban and agricultural areas, estuary management projects, and many others. It may also offer even lower or no-interest loans to small and disadvantage^ communities. B Finally, because the SRF program offers states a high degree of flexibility and con- trol, the program operates very efficiently at the federal level. Currently EPA has just seventy-five people nationwide administering this program with over $16 billion in assets. The SRF is an efficient, streamlined program and should serve as a model for our efforts to reinvent government. t ' . EPA continues to work in partnership with the states to improve the SRF program. For example, this year we are beginning the process of integrating the SRF program with the ecosystem or watershed management concept. Watershed management means targeting resources to the highest priority problems in the watersheds most in need of protection or restoration. In 1995, the states and EPA will be searching for better ways to, get SRF funds to our most precious water resources. ' , To my mind, the SRF program is one of the most sensible investments we can continue to make. We should ensure that this program reaches its full potential by continuing the capitalization of the program as suggested in propos- als for the Clean Water Act. Carol M. Browner ------- A New Era in Clean Water Funding With the passage Jf the Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 19&7, the U.S. Congress ushered in a new era if clean water, funding. The new CWA. called for the replacement of the long- running federal Constpjction Grants program with an innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF) pro- gram. Under the SRF program, each state (and Puerto Rico) created revolving foan funds to provide independent and permanent sources of low-cost financing for a range of environmental infrastruc- ture projects. Funds tjestablish SRF programs are provided through federal government grants (83 percent of total capitalization) and state matching funds (17 percent of total capitalization). Currently, all fifty state!'and Puerto Rico are operating successful SRF programs. ^Capitalization began in 1988 and now totalfmore than $16 billion. As payments are made on loans, funds are recycled to fund additional water protection projects. If capitalized as planned, the SRF will be: available to play a. key role in funding water pollution control infrastructure far into the future. ; SRF Continues a Critical Funding Role Since 1972, the Nation has invested wisely in water pollution control infrastructure. Today, the U.S. enjoys what is probably the most advanced network of sewage treatment facilities in the world. Since 1972, the investment of federal funds in this vast network has totaled over $66 billion. Many more dollars have also been con- tributed by local and state governments. The Construction Grants program and, now, the SRF program have driven the extension of the public health and environmental protection ben- efits associated with modern sewage treatment to more and more of the population. Data included in this report are from a wide variety of sources, including EPA's 1992 Needs Survey, the 1992 National Water Quality Inventory, the 1994 Annual SRF Survey (Ohio Water Development Authority), and the 1990 National Shellfish Register (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). . 4^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- Our Investment in Environmental Infrastructure Has Paid Off 1972, the number of peo| facilities has nearly doubled. In 1! was served by adequate facilities. over 62 percent of the population. ering that during this time both the! pollution flowing through our sewerS e served by modern sewage, treatment g,,,qnly 42 percent.of the population. ^1992,; that number had increased to, ii|^c.hievement is, impressive consid- Jatipn's population and the volume of gtems increased by nearly 30 percent. Although the amount of sewage flowing to the Nation's wastewater facilities increased dramatically during this peri- od, pollutant loads discharged by municipal sewage treat- ment systems actually declined by 2.4 million tons per day or 36 percent to the rate of 4.3 million tons per day. As a direct result of the Clean Water Act and the funding available through the Construction Grants and SRF programs, the quality of lakes, rivers, and other water bodies improved dramatically from 1972 to 1992. Although there are significant methodological differences between the assessments conducted in 1972 and 1992, they do indicate a significant magnitude of progress. ------- The SRP Is Flexible and Offers Many Benefits of the most compelling benefits of the SRF program is that it provides communities with a per- manent and independent source of funding for environmental infrastructure projects. Repayments from low-interest loans made from initial federal and state capitalization funds can be1 recycled for future loans. If these state programs are managed successfully, the funding cycle will continue indef- initely. The SRF Program Offers States A High Degree of Flexibility In adopting the SRF program, Congress gave the states greater flexibility to struc- ture their SRFs to best meet their needs. States can use capitalization funds for a variety of financial assistance options and each option can be customized to match specific state needs. Assistance options available .include: m Low interest loans for communities ' Refinancing, purchasing, or guaranteeing local debt to lower the cost of borrowing for communities Purchasing bond insurance for local debt to increase bond ratings for communities Use of capitalization funds to leverage the SRF (i.e., issue bonds using capitalization funds as security) and, as a result, providfe up to three times as much funding for projects SRF Loan Program Features: |_ Interest Rate: _0%_to Market rate _ _ _ _ , - Repayment Period: tip to 20 years Adjustable-rate loans, stepped payments, balloon payments I" allowed a,t state discretion ^ Loans coyer 100% of eligible costs . . . , _ __ ^ f Repayment begins one-year after project,start-up, (poten- [ tially resulting in additional savings to the community) \ 3U Loans available for all treatment alternatives Loans can cover excess capacity, collection systems, advanced treatment solutions The SRF Program Offers Major Funding Potential The SRF program is clearly a powerful funding instrument that is playing a major role in addressing the billions of dollars needed to fund much-needed environmental infrastructure projects. Because of the revolving nature of the SRF program, it can provide about four times the level of funding over a twenty- year period as compared to a traditional one-time grant (see graph above and to the left). This is the case because, unlike grants that are available only once, SRF loan repayments provide a continuing source of low-cost funding. ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- Approximate F savings with SRF it* "* twenty-year loan Typical municipal borrowing rate in commercial market Average SRF rate Lowest SRF rate 7.5 % _ k 3.0 % 0.0 % 30% 50% The SRF Program Provides Significant Savings to Communities The most significant advantage of the SRF program is the dramatic savings a community can realize by financing projects with SRF loans. Because of the program's low interest rates, the SRF program is contributing significantly toward making needed environmental infrastructure projects more affordable. The chart below shows that a typical SRF loan will save a community approximately 30 percent in total project costs as p_ , compared to financing the same project on the f^ SRF Loan Savings i commercial market. The SRF program allows states flexibility to adjust interest rates to meet the needs of small and disadvantaged communities, therefore, the savings may be as much as a 50 percent reduc- tion in total project costs with a no-interest SRF loan. Because of the low interest rates provided by - the SRF program, communities are saving billions of dollars. The SRF Program Provides Economic Benefits to Communities Aside from the monetary savings available through the SRF, there are many other benefits associated with investments in envi- ronmental infrastructure, including improved recreational and scenic values, protection of public health, conservation of ecol- ogy, and stimulation of local economies. Investments in environmental infrastructure directly^ stimulate local economic development. For instance, investments in wastewater infrastructure attract commercial and industrial development. Such growth leads to increased jobs and cash flow into the local economy, as well as increased revenues for local governments. In the short term, SRF investments also sup- port between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs for every billion dollars invested in the construction and associated industries. Because our lives are centered around our water resources, we have a direct stake in their protection and conservation. Over the long term, such investments lead to increased prosperity and a better overall quality of life. Witness the revitalization of many major urban areas during the 1970s and 1980s, including Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, New York, Savannah, New Orleans, Austin, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Chicago, which invested in environmental infrastructure to clean up their waterfronts. I The SRF Program is Efficient Because of the flexibility built into the program and the streamlined federal requirements, the SRF has accelerated the pace of construction of needed environmental infrastructure projects. Specifically, the average project constructed under the previous Construction Grants program took approximately seven years to reach completion. Under the SRF program that time has been reduced to under five years. ; The SRF program is also a model of efficiency in its relationship to the states. In fact, the SRF is probably the most efficient program of its kind in the federal government. The SRF was created to be a state-run program with little federal oversight and great state flexibility. In the eight years since its inception, EPA has worked hard to keep to this ideal. For instance, the Agency's regulations implementing the program contain no significant additional requirements beyond those required in the authorizing legislation. Additionally, EPA administers this vast program of over $16 billion with just seventy-five positions most of them in EPA's ten regional offices far fewer than any other comparable federal funding program. s ------- SRF Program Flexibility Results In innovative State Solj The nine states highlighted below illustrate the flexibility and innovations possible with the SRF progra Funding for AH Types of Environmental Infrastructure Projects Besides offering loans for traditional wastewater facili- ties, Washington and California led the Nation in using the SRF program loans to address agricultural, rural, and urban runoff (nonpoint sources). Other states including Ohio, Wyoming, and Delaware are also funding these kinds of projects. Coordinating with Other Federal Funding Programs Arkansas and other states including New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Washington coordinate SRF assistance with other federal programs (e.g., Rural Development Administration loans/grants) to maximize ben- efits for communities. Accelerating Use of Funds Alabama and Kansas have found ways to increase the pace of their programs and, as a result, the pace of facility construction. Other states include New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota, Connecticut, Michigan, Virginia and Qeorgia. Designing SRF Financing to Minimize Borrowing Costs Texas, Minnesota, and New York have designed very strong SRF programs and have been recognized by the financial markets with AAA bond ratings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- the states are tailoring their programs along these lines. Integrating with the Watershed Approach Ohio is leading the way in integrating the SRF program with watershed-based plans to assure funding is provided for high-priority projects. Many other states are moving in this direction. CT Combining SRF with Other State Financing Programs Connecticut has its own state environmental infrastruc- ture financing program which operates in concert with its SRF program to maximize benefits to communities. Other states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Maine have similar programs. Increasing Funding with Innovative Financial "Leveraging" of the SRF New York's leveraging approach uses federal capitalization funds as security for bonds to provide a high level of funding ($2 billion for loans). Other states with effective leveraging programs include Minnesota, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado. Targeting Assistance to Small/Disadvantaged Communities Virginia has done much to ensure that the low cost bene- fits of the SRF program reach small and disadvantaged communities. Other states include Ohio, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Minnesota, West Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Utah. Adjusting the SRF to Match the Financial Conditions of Communities Tennessee has developed a very sophisticated program to tailor interest rates and repayment periods to the eco- nomic condition of each community. Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and others also operate their programs similarly. ------- The SRF Program Finances A Vast Array of Environmental Infrastructure Projects TOG Construction Grants program (1972-1990) was devoted primarily to building wastewater systems. The SRF program takes a broader approach. In addition to traditional municipal wastewater, the SRF can finance a broad array of environmental projects to address agricultural, rural, and urban runoff, contami- nated urban stormwater, combined sewer overflows, and even estuary management projects. Pftoto. Tom Slack/Tim Stacks Associates Photo: Tom Stack/Tom Stack & Associates Municipal Wastewater Of course, the SRF funds the con- struction of traditional municipal wastewater treatment systems. Not surprisingly, since its inception, the majority of SRF funds have, in fact, been devoted to these very impor- tant projects. Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Besides traditional wastewater pro- jects, the SRF program makes loans to correct flows of raw sewage from "combined sewer overflows" (CSOs) and to address the effects of contam- inated urban stormwater. Since 1988, the SRFs have made approxi- mately 150 loans worth $1.0 billion to correct these serious problems. | Combined Sewer Overflows J tjn.many older cities, sanitary and . testorm sewers . are combined. j? Periods of high rain often cause |g-"overflows." Raw sewage over- ptri lit. i ferflpws its normal route to the m" 4 i ' j . * lg-sewage treatment plant and is ^carried directly to rivers, lakes , n 'and coastal areas. ,; | Stormwater ; jpAs stormwater runs off city ; |.L-streets, lawns, and construction ; fesites it picks up many pollutants .: p^"r L ' -- ^ tand may result in very serious ;; fcwater quality impacts. In fact, : gjEEA's"''1#?2;^Water"''' Quality"''1 g=f~"- * - -T; ; . " -- ' « ipjnyentpry cites urban runoff and 4 EL,.,-. ..', . .- , ., 5- , , ^,. - _ . ,., 5t( jUStorm sewejs as; the third leading 5 k,cause ,pf .impairments to rivers, *s^^--'-T ,,:", ,'," , ,,- ... _ - ,,jj P' ikes, and estuaries. :*'>/!«.. «-(»..«'!' ; - -^ ',',,;,':-.!,,-'« ,^ Pftoto; John CcncatoslfTom Stack & Associates Agriculture and Urban Runoff ; The SRFs have also made approximately 100 loans worth $100 million to address contaminated runoff from agricultural and urban land (known in the CWA as "nonpoint sources"). Runoff from agricultural lands is the most significant problem affecting our Nation's water resources today. The SRF can fund projects that address pollution from a wide variety of diffuse sources, including agriculture, silviculture, and abandoned mines. The SRF program is also available to fund estuary management projects. Because of the vast flexibility inherent in the SRF program, the program is well-suit- ed to accommodate the watershed approach. The watershed approach is EPA's new model for program implementation and is based on the premise of addressing the most serious problems first. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- Small and Disadvantaged Communities and the SRF IVIclflaCJGrS of sj|||lLandJdisadvantaged communities confront a variety of challenges when plan- ning water pollution comrlgl projects. One major challenge is securing funding for environmental projects at a time when demangs from other programs and other community services such as education and police protection areTHcreasing. In small communities, p%r capita income is generally lower than in major metropolitan areas. Costs are also typically higher on a pej[person basis for wastewater and other environmental facilities. Tims, many small communities have difficulty gaining access to long-term credit. The SRF program is gaipng popularity as an important source of funding for small and disadvantageojcommunities. In a recent state-sponsored survey: 40 states reported about 650 small community SRF loans (population^,000 or less) . that's over 25 percent of the total numbfr of SRF loans in the country 21 states reported a total of 341 loans for disadvantaged com- munities or^about 14 percent of the total number of loans Photo: Byron Austin/Tom Stack & Associates Small and disadvantaged communities benefit from the SRF program for several reasons. First, many states offer very low interest rates on loans to small and disadvantaged communitiesproviding the boost needed to get projects started. For example, the SRF can make a 0 percent loan to a community for 20 years saving the community 50 percent of total project cost over a similar commercial loan at 7.5 percent. Other SRF pro- gram benefits important to small and disadvantaged communities include the following: H Loans may fund appropriate or alternative technology approaches (i.e., decentralized, low- tech solutions) Loans may fund collection systems, reserve capacity, and projects designed to support eco- nomic development IS The program can also provide customized technical assistance to small and disadvantaged communities It is important that small communities identify all options that are available for financing wastewater pro- jects; SRF loans can be combined with other federal and state funding assistance. By combining funding sources, such as grants from the Rural Development Administration, communities can make their projects even more affordable. Photo: Theo Singelis 11 ------- Current investment in the SRF just eight years of investment by the federal government and the states, over $16 billion is cur- rently available for loans for environmental infrastructure projects. SRF Investment ($ billion) Federal SRF Investment (FY88-FY95) ; $ .11.1 Required State Match $ 2.0 Proceeds from Leveraging (bond proceeds, etc.) $ 5.2 Bond Reserve Funds ($ 2.3) Amount Available for Loans ' $ 16.0 Photo: Bab Wmsett/Tom Stack & Associates Future investment in the SRF WflllQ the Nation has made tremendous progress in protecting our water resources since the early 1970s, there is still much to do to clean up and protect our valuable water resources. For instance, EPA's 1992 National Water Quality Inventory showed that roughly 38 percent of the assessed river miles, 44 percent of assessed lake acres, and 32 percent of assessed estuary square miles were impaired. In addition, 37 percent of the Nation's shellfish beds are restricted, limited or closed, indicating significant remaining coastal pollu- tion problems. A vast majority of this pollution comes from sources that can be addressed by pro- jects funded by SRF loans (see table to left). 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- 1 EPA publishes the biennial Needs Survey to document, in financial terms, the needs for various types of environmental infrastructure projects. The 1992 Needs Survey contains over $137 billion in needs over twenty years for projects ranging from traditional ..,...;,_.,...,,.. wastewater treatment to agricultural and urban **- ; JM* ' ' .:'- . x nonpoint sources. Addressing needs of this mag- (L^,J9?2 Funding Needs Survey {$ Billions) nitude will require communities to tap into all |g^--:-r'- . , ' ; : . V ' ""f-" ' > '' - available financing sources. The SRF program IK ^Traditional Facilities | will be an important and significant part of com- j?frr Combined Sewers & Stormwate)1 munity funding solutions. (Needs Survey esti- |f~~ Agriculture/Silviculture mates are for projects which are needed today and include reserve capacity for the next 20 years.) /Other , Total, $ 85.8. '.$ 41.3 $ 8.8 .'$ 1.2 $137.1 Because the SRF program is well established and recognized as the most efficient method, of financing environmental infrastructure projects, the Administration has proposed a plan that would continue capi- talization of the SRF program through the year 2004 (see chart to left). Continued investment in the SRF program as indicat- ed, will establish the 51 SRF programs as permanent and independent sources of low-cost financing for important environmental infrastructure projects. Further, this level of capitalization will allow the SRFs to issue more than $2.0 billion in. loans annually for the foreseeable future (see chart below). Photo: Theo SingeKs 13 ------- Benefits of Future Investment in the SRF program It is evident, even considering the impressive progress we have made over the last twenty years, that there is still much to do to protect the Nation's water resources. Continued investment in the SRF program can further this progress in many ways. As was mentioned earlier, investment in a revolving fund program like the SRF has the distinct advantage of providing four times more environmental protection than traditional one-time grants. If the federal and state governments continue to invest ir; the SRF program, we can expect our environmental conditions to continue to improve. In fact, if we continue to invest in the SRF program (as stated on the previous page) we can expect that sewage treatment plants will continue to be upgraded and improved as indicated in the chart to the left. Similarly, we can expect that more and more of the population will be served by modern and efficient sewage treatment (see chart to the right). We can also expect that more and more pollutants will be removed from our waterways (see chart below). If we continue to invest in the SRF program as outlined earlier in this report, we can expect the overall condi- tion of water resources to continue to improve hand-in- hand with the continued economic development asso- ciated with such investments in environmental infra- Structure. To continue progress toward the goal of protecting "the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of the Nation's water resources as established in the Clean Water Act, we will need to continue to invest in our most effective programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We will also need to ensure our efforts are directed, through sound science and good management, toward solving the most significant problems in those areas that are most in need of protection. The SRF program is wor- thy of our continued focus and investment. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water ------- State Revolving State Contacts Fund ALABAMA Department of Environmental Management P.O. Box 301463 Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 ALASKA Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Facilities Construction and Operation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 -1795 ARIZONA Arizona Wastewater Management Authority 3033 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 ARKANSAS Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology Construction Assistance Division P.O. Box 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 CALIFORNIA State Water Resources Control Board P.O. BOX944214 Sacramento, CA 94244 COLORADO Colorado Department of Health 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South Denver, CO 80222-1530 CONNECTICUT Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Management 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 DELAWARE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Water Resources P.O. Box 1401 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 FLORIDA Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 GEORGIA Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Suite 1058, East Tower Butler Street Atlanta, GA 30334 HAWAII Department of Health Environmental Management Division 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 309 Honolulu, HI 96814 IDAHO Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality 1410 North Hilton, Statehouse Mail Boise, ID 83720-9000 ILLINOIS Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution Control P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62706-9276 INDIANA Indiana Department of Environmental Management Facilities Development Branch 100 North Senate Avenue P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 IOWA Iowa Department of Natural Resources Henry A. Wallace Building 500 East Grand DesMoines, IA 50319 KANSAS Kansas Department of Health and Environment J Street and 2 North Building 283 Topeka, KS 66620-0110 KENTUCKY Kentucky Infrastructure Authority Finance and Administration Cabinet Capital Annex, Room 261 Frankfort, KY 40601 ing Administration "' LOUISIANA Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 8221 5 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-221 5 MAINE Maine Municipal Bond Baj 45 University Drive P.O. Box 2268 Augusta, ME 04338 MARYLAND Maryland Water Quality F 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21 224 MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust One Ashburton Place, 12tj}Fjoor __ Boston, MA 021 08 fer MICHIGAN -l^"" Michigan Department of Neural Resources , Municipal Facilities Section^ Community Assistance Division P.O. Box 30273 fe-; Lansing, Ml 48909 t _ MINNESOTA L^ Minnesota Public Facilities_Au,tborrty Department of Trade and Economic Development 500 Metro Square . '- 121 7th Place East 9,- St. Paul, MN 551 01 -2146 ~ MISSISSIPPI Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 2030S r Jackson, MS 39209 f^_ MISSOURI Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 S" JsKerson CHy, MO 65102~:"'~ ::::' .-;' ..... ; MONTANA C Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences r.~" ' - , Cogswell Building ;;:-" Helena, MT 59620 NEBRASKA Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 1200 N Street, The Atrium, Suite 400 P.O. Box 98922 " Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 ~. "'..'' NEVADA Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 333 West Nye Lane Capital Complex Carson City, NV 89710 NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wastewater Engineering Bureau 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03301 NEW JERSEY Department of Environmental Protection Municipal Wastewater Assistance 1333 Brunswick Ave. CN-425 Trenton, NJ 08625 NEW MEXICO New Mexico Costruction Programs Bureau Environmental Improvement Division 1190 St. Francis Drive, Room 2210 Santa Fe, NM 87502 NEW YORK Environmental Facilities Corporation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 , NORTH CAROLINA Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27611 NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories Environmental Health Section P.O. Box 5520 Bismarck, ND 58505-5520 OHIO Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance P.O. Box 163669 1800~Water Mark Drive - Columbus, OH 43266-1049 OKUHOMA *~ Oklahoma Water Resources Board 600 North Harvey Avenue PO Box 150 Oklaripma City, OK 73101-0150 ORECiON Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 PENNSYLVANIA Pennsiylvahia Infrastructure Investment Authority Keystone Building, 4th Floor 22 South 3rd Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 PUERTO RICO Envirp.nmental Quality Board Water, Quality Area P.O. Box 11488 Santurce, PR 00910 RHODE ISLAND Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Management 235 Promenade Street Providence, Rl 02908 SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 SOUTH DAKOTA SoutrjJDakota Department of Environment and Natural . Resources Joe Fos's Building, 523 East Capitol Pierre( SD 57501-3181 TENNESSEE Department of Health and Environment L & C "Tower 401 Church Street, 21st Floor Nashville, TN 37243-1533 TEXAS _ Texas Water Development Board Engineering Division P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station Austiri.TX 78711-3231 UTAH Utah Department of Environmental Quality 288 North 1460 West P.O. Elox 14480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 VERMONT Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Public Facilities Division One Cannery Building 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 VIRGINIA Virginja State Water Control Board Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 WASHINGTON Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 WEST VIRGINIA Construction Assistance Branch Division of Environmental Protection Water Resources Section 617 Broad Street Charleston, WV 25301 WISCONSIN Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Clean Water Fund Loan Section P.O. Box 7921 101 South Webster Street Madison, Wl 53707-7921 WYOMING Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Herschler Building 122 West 25th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600 ------- ^^^^jp'^^^^^^/^JS^i.f^'H^r^^^lnSffi^Sli^^^ !iiii.i!l! IV"1' -'!! liF1' \"c°l 'S.r ' ' "g I w MM riij'?'''^..!^' ? Wiirflw Iffii raJJIfg? ------- |